097.pdf

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SARAH KELLEN, LESLEY GROFF and NATALYA MALYSHEV Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 00616 (JGK) PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATE SERVICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(e)(1) Plaintiff, Sarah Ransome 1 , by and through her undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 308(5) files this Renewed Motion to Approve Alternative Service and for grounds thereof states: As this Court is aware, Defendant Maxwell is also a defendant in another action in the Southern District of New York, Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433 RWS. In that action, Maxwell is represented by counsel who appeared before that Court on her behalf as recently as November 8, 2017. Despite that fact, Maxwell will apparently not authorize her counsel to accept service of the complaint in this case. Indeed, Maxwell’s counsel has gone so far as to hire their own separate legal counsel to argue to this Court that they should not have to accept service in this case. Yet in this very case, Maxwell has already actively participated, including having counsel make a request for additional time to serve her answer and attempting to impose 1 Plaintiff has decided to reveal her identity in connection with this matter and has filed a Notice to Change Case Caption. Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 97 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 8 2 restrictions on the case of discovery materials. See DE 69 and November 23, 2017 Letter to Judge Koeltl, Exhibit D. While this Court originally granted Plaintiff Ms. Ransome’s Motion for Alternate Service (DE 57), Maxwell’s counsel sought reconsideration of that Order on October 30, 2017. This Court held a hearing on November 28, 2017 and issued an Order on November 30, 2017 instructing Ms. Ransome to again attempt service on Defendant Maxwell on or before January 5, 2018: “By that date, the plaintiff will file either proof of service or a renewed application to the alternate service.” DE 90. As directed, Ms. Ransome has made the following attempts to effectuate service on Maxwell:  Ms. Ransome provided Maxwell’s counsel of record in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case a copy of the summons and complaint;  Ms. Ransome emailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the following email address which is publicly associated with Maxwell, gmax@ellmax.com. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, December 4, 2017 E-mail;  Ms. Ransome retained, at significant expense, a private investigation firm to attempt to effectuate service at locations associated with Maxwell in New York and New Jersey, including the following addresses: 1. 116 E. 65th Street, New York, NY 10065; 2. 457 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022; and 3. 55 Monterey Avenue, Teaneck, NJ 07666. As detailed in the affidavit of Investigator Douglas Mercer (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2), at one location, it was clear that individuals were present in the home but were refusing to answer the door and accept service;  Ms. Ransome conducted a public record search of the London Townhome that was identified in Epstein’s Phone Directory as being associated with Defendant Maxwell: 44 Kinnerton Street, London. The UK government record request demonstrates that title to the property was changed on March 17, 2016 to Eaton Square Properties Limited and is no longer owned by Defendant Maxwell rendering attempts at service in London futile. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Summary of Title NGL948023; and Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 97 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 8 3  Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell is also identified as the founder of the TerraMar Project on its website. The organization has a New York address for its headquarters at 326 E. 65 th Street #326, New York, New York 10065. The email address identified with the organization is hello@theterramarproject.org. On January 4, 2018, we served a copy of the summons and complaint to the following potential email addresses: 1. gmaxwell@theterramarproject.org; 2. maxwellg@theterramarproject.org; 3. ghislaine@theterramarproject.org; 4. gmax@theterramarproject.org; 5. maxwell@theterramarproject.org; and 6. ghislaine.maxwell@theterramarproject.org. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. The only email address which received a delivery failure message was maxwell@theterramarproject.org. Accordingly, having made renewed – and unsuccessful efforts – to serve Maxwell through conventional means, Ms. Ransome now renews her request for alternative service as such means as the Court may find appropriate. Ms. Ransome respectfully suggests that, as the Court allowed in its previous order, that service of the complaints on current legal counsel representing her in a related matter before this Court and other publicly identified email accounts be permitted as a means of alternative service. MEMORANDUM OF LAW Service of a Complaint should not be a game of cat and mouse particularly where the defendant is represented by counsel in a matter pending in the same district. See Carillo v. Hagerty, No. 3:05CV1417 (MRK), 2006 WL 2165679, at *1 (D. Conn. July 31, 2006) (court Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 97 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 8 4 finding defendant should not benefit from service gamesmanship reasoning that: "service of process is not intended to be a game of hide and seek or cat and mouse."). Based on the exhaustion of the other methods of service delineated above, Ms. Ransome moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), for an order permitting service by an alternative method. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that service upon a party may be effected by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Accordingly, Defendant Maxwell may be served pursuant to CPLR § 308, which provides several methods by which service upon a natural person may be effectuated, including personal service; service by “delivering the summons ... to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served” and then mailing the summons to the individual's “last know residence;” or service by “affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served” and then “mailing the summons to such person at his or her last known residence” or to his or her place of business - so called “nail and mail” service. CPLR §§ 308(1), (2) & (4). If service under CPLR §§ 308(1), (2) & (4) is impracticable, CPLR § 308(5) permits service “in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs.” The determination of whether service is impracticable “depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. HGI, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 3866 (DLC), 1999 WL 1021087, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1999). Although the plaintiff must show impracticability of service, there is no requirement of “proof of due diligence or of actual prior attempts to serve a party under the other provisions of the statute.” Id. “When usual methods of service prove impracticable, service Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 97 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 8 5 that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the interested party of the pendency of the action will suffice.” D.R.I., Inc. v. Dennis, No. 03 Civ. 10026 (PKL), 2004 WL 1237511, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2004). New York Courts consistently